diately. Another may live a thousand miles off. To him he will restore his own in such a manner as will most directly and safely accomplish the object. The property of another may have been inherited by heirs; to these he will restore their portion according to the principles of law and justice. He may thus be obliged to hold this possession in his own hands for some time after he has renounced all right to hold it as his own. He holds it, however, not for his own benefit, but merely for the sake of being the better enabled to do justice. He is innocent of dishonesty in just so far as he thus holds it. If he allow any unnecessary delay to intervene if because the rightful owner does not know of his loss-if, because he cannot restore it to-day, he resolve that he will not restore it at all

or if, because he finds some difficulty in carrying out the principle of right, he quietly relapse into his former state, and uses as his own, and for his own benefit, what on the eternal principles of justice belongs to another-in the sight of God and man he is guilty of dishonesty.

Such, my dear brother, seem to me some of the - reasons why the Scriptures selected this mode of teaching us our duty on this subject, and of the bearing which this mode of teaching should have upon our present practice.

I am, my dear brother, yours, with every sentiment of Christian affection,

THE AUTHOR OF THE MORAL SCIENCE.

LETTER VIII.

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D.

MY DEAR BROTHER

In my last letter I attempted to exhibit the rea, sons why the inspired writers of the New Testament preferred to teach the will of God on the subject of slavery by principle rather than by precept; and to show that, such being the revealed will of God, a most solemn and imperative duty is imposed upon the disciples of Christ in the slave. holding States. I shall ask your attention to a few additional remarks on the latter of these topics, and with these shall close my part of this correspondence, already, I fear, too much protracted.

I remarked in the preceding letter, that if the views which I have taken of this subject be correct, it is the immediate duty of every slaveholder at once to free himself from the guilt of slavery, and, also, by the use of his whole constitutional power, to free his country from this guilt.

In pursuing this subject somewhat farther, I would suggest that this, as it seems to me, would be the duty of every man, especially of every disciple of Christ, were slavery nothing more than you have represented it to be-the "obliging another to labor for our benefit without his contract or consent." By our very constitution as men, we are under solemn and unchangeable obligations to respect the rights of the meanest thing that lives. Every other man is created with the same rights

as ourselves; and, most of all, he is created with the inalienable "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To deprive him of these as a punishment for crime, while yet he continues under the protection of law, is one of the severest inflictions that the criminal code of any human government can recognise, even when the punishment is confined to his own person. But what crime can be conceived of so atrocious as to justify the consigning of a human being to servitude for life, and the extension of this punishment to his posterity down to the remotest generations? Were this the penalty even for murder, every man in the civilized world would rise up in indignation at its enormous injustice. How great, then, must be the injustice when such a doom is inflicted, not upon criminals convicted of atrocious wickedness, but upon men, women, and children, who have never been accused of any crime, and against whom there is not even the suspicion of guilt! Can any moral creature of God be innocent that inflicts such punishment upon his fellow-creatures, who have never done any thing to deserve it? I ask, what have those poor, defenceless, and undefended black men done, that they and their children forever should thus be consigned to hopeless servitude? If they have done nothing, how can we be innocent if we inflict such punishment upon them? But yet more. The spirit of Christianity, if I understand it aright, teaches us not merely the principles of pure and elevated justice, but those of the most tender and all-embracing charity. The Captain of our salvation was anointed "to preach the gospel to the poor; he was sent to heal

the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised." "He is the

comforter of them that are cast down." Can the disciple of such a Saviour, then, inflict the least, how much less the greatest, of punishments upon a human being who has never been guilty of a crime that should deserve it?

All this, as it seems to me, must then be the duty of every man, especially of every disciple of Christ, even were slavery such as you have defined it; that is, if the slave were merely held to compulsory labor, but fed and clothed with considerate care-if he were as perfectly as ourselves under the protection of law-if the laws affecting him were made with the greatest respect for his condition and helplessness-if no other inconvenience were imposed upon him except merely what might be necessary to ensure his faithful laborand if, in the division of the profits of his labor, a cautious love of right awarded to him his just portion of the joint proceeds of labor and capital.

But if, under such circumstances as these, it would be our duty to free ourselves from the responsibility which attaches to such an act of injustice, how much more imperative must be this duty, if all these modifying circumstances are totally reversed!

What if these human beings, thus punished without crime, or the suspicion of it, are placed wholly without the protection of law, and are surrendered up by society to the will of their masters, absolutely, without the power of resistance or the hope of redress, to be dealt with as the master

shall choose? You and I know full well the character which the word of God attributes to fallen human nature. We have all been taught how insufferably arrogant and cruel the mind of man becomes, when intrusted with irresponsible power. What, then, must be the condition of a human being left without remedy to the exercise of this power? I know it may be said that there are laws for the protection of slaves. But I ask, is there one of these laws which is not a blot upon a statute-book, if we believe the creatures to whom they refer to be human beings like ourselves? But these laws, bad as they are, seem to me merely a mockery. Of what use is a law, when the testimony of the parties liable to injury can never be taken in evidence? Who need fear punishment, when the only witnesses to his wrong are universally forbidden to testify? If it be said that the rights of the slaves are protected by public opinion, I ask, when has public opinion defined these rights? and who is the man that has dared to give utterance to this public opinion? Nay, more, I cannot but consider the laws on this subject a tolerably fair index of the general sentiment of the community. If the public opinion had decided that the slaves had rights, which it was the duty of society to protect, I cannot but believe that a great and radical change would long since have been effected in the statute-books of our Southern States.

It is one of the fundamental principles of society, that no human being shall lay an unkind hand upon another, whatever may be their difference in rank. If wrong have been done, society ascertains